Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1997.06.09MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION June 9, 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Key on June 9, 1997 at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Munk, Wellford and Key Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the May 27, 1997, page 2, paragraph 6; "Motion was seconded by C. Galligan", was moved to the end of the next paragraph. The minutes were then approved. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. APPLICATION FOR PARKING AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AT 1506 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (ANDREW RAYMUNDO, SINCLAIR ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND AMY MCCLELLAND, PROPERTY OWNER) Requests: explain hardship on property for location of garage since application shows lot 50 feet wide which is typical in city; never been told before approval that intend to build something else, approval based on specific plans, revisions should be shown on plans submitted for action, all commissioners concurred; provide survey all garage locations on both sides of this block of Vancouver; why is adding a swimming pool in the rear yard a hardship justifying a variance for one covered parking space. Commissioners expressed the following concerns about documentation on the plans, applicant should address all of these before plans are submitted for action meeting: height so close to maximum allowed concerned that existing plate height because of size of lumber in this older structure might be several inches greater than 8'-0" which would result in structure exco�.ding height limit unless all existing ceiling joists removed also show space between joists at 12", not typical of older buildings, confirm dimensions in existing building; error on elevation, line showing maximum height ends below ridge about 6 inches; no front setbacks are shown for lot 26, please add; is the point of departure on the plans for determining declining height on this sloping lot taken from the proper point, revise; staff report shows about an 85 SF discrepancy between the SF in the house as calculated by staff and -1- Burlingame Planning Commission Mir ues )ewe 9 1997 applicant because no dimensions are given on the rooms, add dimensions and recalculate; on plans shown over new construction by 249 SF, number is low because includes the garage in base calculation, in fact garage is not counted and proposed remodel is greater than 700 SF over new construction base line, plans should be corrected; measurements need to be added on the site plan; why can't the existing 18' x 20' garage be enlarged to make a 21' x 21' garage as required by code. Attached to application is a list of projects previously reviewed by the: Planning Commission which received variances, could staff identify the exceptional circumstances on the lot and justifying findings for each of these cases; how much of this structure will remain when demolition is complete and ready to begin remodel. The application was set for public hearing when the needed information is provided. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO REPLACE A GARAGE AT 834 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (SCOTT WITH, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: Application shows that the building will overhang the 2 foot setback, how does Building Department look at this; will there be storage in the attic area; plans show a retaining wall around the perimeter of the garage and regrading the rear yard, will there be a retaining wall around the rear yard; if garage slightly bigger it would accommodate two cars even if it does not have back up, why not enlarge; are dormers shown decorative or do they serve some purpose; applicant should talk to neighbor on the right to see how s/he feels since they will be most impacted. Item set for public hearing June 23, 1997, if all the questions are answered. APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, FRONT SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES AT 16 KENMAR WAY, ZONED R-1, (BAEK YOUNG AHN, AIA, APPLICANT AND JUNG HO LEE, PROPERTY OWNER). Requests: concerned about the number of cars which might be associated with a house with 8 bedrooms, Kenmar is a two lane street so there is a potential traffic and parking problem, applicant should address how going to solve this problem without damage to the neighbors; code standards are minimum, three spaces not enough for eight bedrooms, think 4 a better number, where can one more space be placed; applicant should provide a copy of the easement agreement, so commission can understand the permanency of the easement and property owners rights; applicant should discuss his remodeling plans with his neighbors before the public hearing; variance: findings based on odd shape of lot, but lot is also very big so need additional findings; could more parking be placed at rear of property along easement at side property line. Item was set for public hearing June 23, 1997 providing that the responses are complete in time. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL INS FITUTION (LOAN BROKERAGE) AT 1802 MAGNOLIA AVENUE, ZONED C-1, (MIKE YOUNESSIAN, APPLICANT AND DAVID R & C M PEDERSON, TRS.. PROPERTY OWNERS?. Requests: what specific type of loan brokering does this business do i.e., "hard money, escrow services, buy and sell loans, any real estate sales transactions, etc.; application does not seem to accurately reflect number of people who might be expected to be on site at one time, applicant should clarify; there is a basic parking problem at this site, on the corner is a dry cleaners with high turn over parking, Jim's take out Chinese food on Trousdale has no parking, how will this business affect the availability of parking in the area since there is no through access to parking in front on Trousdale, to far to expect customers to walk; where will employees of this business park, there are 10 businesses -2- Burlingame Planning Commission Miu acs hwe 9. Z997 on Magnolia and 12 parking spaces, some of which are 24 minute; what was at this location before. Item was set for public hearing on June 23, 1997. ITEMS FOR ACTION APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEALTH SERVICES AT 405 PRIMROSE ROAD, SUITE 205, ZONED C- 1, SUBAREA B-1, (GAIL M. SHAK, APPLIC:ANT, AND TERRY HORN, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 6.9.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Gail Shak, 103 Cambridge; Road, and Terry Horn, 405 Primrose were present to answer questions. Her clients are seen individually, this is common in her business. The lobby is a reception area, there is no storage area. She has read and understands the conditions in the staff report. This counseling office will operate on a ;part time basis and no change in the future is foreseen. Applicant will operate on a part time basis. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan moved approval of this special permit for health services based on the staff report with evidence provided by the applicant, the use will not be detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood and is located in accordance with the General Plan. This motion is by resolution, subject to conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) that the psychotherapy office shall be limited to 240 SF in Suite 205, at 405 Primrose Road, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 29, 1997, Second Floor Plan (8 lh" x 11"); 2) that the psychotherapy office shall not be open for business except during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday with a maximum of one employee on site at any one time; 3) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; and 4) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C Ellis who noted that this use is consistent with others in the neighborhood. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were noted. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEALTH SERVICES AT 405 PRIMROSE ROAD, SUITE 317, ZONED C- 1, SUBAREA B-1, (DIANE WILSON, APPLICANT, AND TERRY HORN, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 6.9.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Diane Wilson, 1254 - 12th. Avenue, San Francisco and Terry Horn, 405 Primrose, were available to reply to any questions. Leased space is small, applicant noted usually sees only 1 person, sometimes 2 clients, are counseled at one session, she has no group sessions. She has read and understands the conditions in the staff report and has no problem with the requirements. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minates low 9.1997 C. Galligan, based on testimony, comments and information in the staff report moved approval for a special permit for health service in suite 317, by resolution, noting ithis health service use is not detrimental or injurious to the vicinity and is in accord with the Burlingame General Plan, with conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) that the counseling office shall be limited to 108 SF in Suite 317, at 405 Primrose Road, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 14, 1997, Third Floor Plan (8 V2" x 11"); 2) that the counseling office shall not be open for business except for two days a week Monday through Saturday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., with a maximum of one employee (including the owner) on site at any one time; 3) that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; and 4) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey and approved on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedure were advised. APPLICATION FOR AN ANTENNA EXCEPTION AT 1070 BROADWAY, ZONED M-1, (RICH HILDEBRAND. APPLICANT, AND MIKE HARVEY, PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 6.9.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. Have the 8 antenna which can be installed without Planning Commission review been installed, could not see them. Chairman Key opened the public hearing. Richard Hildebrand representing Cellular One, 651 Gateway Blvd, Suite 1500, South San Francisco, spoke. He noted that batteries with the equipment would allow it to continue to operate for 12 hours after a power failure. After that they would bring an emergency generator on the site and plug it in at grade on the rear of the building. The 8 permitted antenna have not yet been installed. They did not want to install them until they could do all 12; the four on the rear wall cannot meet the 3 foot setback because the penthouse wall is flush with the exterior wall of the building to accommodate the elevator. He presented pictures of what the antenna look like at another similar location. The antenna are directional so need them to face north, south and west. Of the four antenna in a set, two transmit and two receive. The building is tall enough at this location that they will not need to extend the antenna above the top of the penthouse. Each set of four antennas takes about 50 watts of energy and has 10 to 20 channels. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Ellis moved approval, noting that this installation was not obtrusive, much better that the one proposed on the hill several years ago, will be visible only from Star Way, and is thus compatible with the land uses in the area and provides no public health or safety problems, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the antennas shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 9, 1997, Sheets A0, A1.0 and A2.0 (8 1/2" x 11"); and 2) that this project shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan and was passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Chairman advised the applicant of the appeal rights and procedure. -4- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes .runs 9, 1997 PLANNER'S REPORTS Commission acknowledged receipt of the memo on changes to the facade of the classroom project at the Presbyterian Church, 1500 Easton Avenue. The had no comments. City Planner reviewed briefly the actions at the City Council meeting on June 2, 1997, and the Council Budget study session on June 3, 1997. Commission discussed regulations limiting demolitions in residentially zoned areas which is a part of the Neighborhood Consistency issue. Commissioners noted: that this regulation infers a close sequence between demolition and building permits; biggest problem seems to be on multiple zoned lots; concerned that garages not be allowed to be demolished unless going to rebuild right away; since a garage its a separate structure can be handled separately; opposed to limiting demolition of whole houses because if keep until after building permit issued not know development going to occur; if owner wants to demolish that is his right; this ordinance would keep a property owner from demolishing a property to create open space or a park; holding out demolition permits encourages owners to intensify use of property outside of the code; prefer to have a vacant lot for a long time over a substandard house; instead of this prohibition could have stronger maintenance requirement for those that do demolish, could require hydro -seeding or planting ornamental cover to reduce fire hazard; can spend a long time in plan check and not being able to demolish holds up contractor; many small permits are needed to demolish a building, electrical, sewer, water, so some kind of building permit is needed; the issue appears to be when the demolition site is left for a long time and becomes a neighborhood nuisance; if house next door demolished and left could be a problem for neighbor who is selling; problem to require developer to "landscape" if vacant short time; CA noted that City of San Mateo at one time had an ordinance to require landscaping if structures were removed; know new house will have to meet city requirements or have a public hearing so development on a vacant lot not a problem; this ordinance does not respond to neighborhood's desire to save a house; can get a building permit, demolish and wait a long time, extending the building permit before develop; at one time city did require to have a building permit before demolition, then they required approval of a number of departments before a demo permit could be issued, now there are no limitations, so there has been a lot of change; could have condition in ordinance which addresses removal for health and safety and if not developed in "reasonable amount of time" would need to add landscaping; limited number of multiple lots in city, know of two which sold recently which are going to continue being used by one house; not a problem that lot is vacant, problem is that they look awful with trash, weeds etc., so real issue is to make the vacant lots look acceptable perhaps the Beautification Commission should advise; if appearance is the problem, then that is the issue to address not more controls; concerned about involving the Beautification Commission since the purpose would be to make look acceptable not to beautify and spend a lot of money on a short term solution. In a motion C. Galligan stated the consensus of the commission was to review current regulations to determine how the garage demo/replacement issue could be addressed, ask the Building Department if their are other such necessary replacement items which should be included and get a copy of the San Mateo ordinance on vacant lot vegetation to see what it suggests. The; motion was seconded by C. Ellis. The motion passed 7-0 on a roll call vote. -5 - Burhngame Planning Commission Minww hoer 9. Z997 Commission Reviewed and Discussed the Amended Resolution of Rules of Procedure for the Commission. Staff pointed out in introducing this topic that revisions to the underlined passages of the current rules of procedure would require City Council to revise the municipal code. Changes to the other portions would require Commission action and Council approval. Commissioners went through the annotated draft of the Rules of Procedure and discussed each item and the annotations. They spent some time discussing the definition of quorum noting that when only a quorum (4 members) of the commission is seated a majority of them (3) should be able to act. This would facilitate getting business done on the rare occasions when this occurs. They also discussed an ending time for meetings; the consensus was that the commission should decided by a vote of the majority at 10:30 p.m. if they want to proceed to the next items. Generally they felt that this might be a better approach than putting a limitation on the number of items on an agenda. They felt that staff s current practices administering agendas were effective. Staff was directed to make a number of other changes to make the rules consistent with present practice and the Brown Act and to resubmit the revised text to the Commission at the next meeting. The commission also discussed trying to rotate the first vote from item to item during a meeting. The City Attorney said that the rotation of vote was not something that needed to be in the rules of procedure. The City Attorney and City Planner will work on the revisions for the next meeting as directed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. NUNUTM.9 Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary r�